Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-07-2013 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Agenda - 05-07-2013 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-07-2013 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2014 2:04:51 PM
Creation date
5/6/2013 9:50:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/7/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 05-07-2013
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br /> 1 process, it was assumed that there would be an agreement with Orange County and this area <br /> 2 would become a part of Chapel Hill. He said it is now known that town initiated annexation is <br /> 3 unlikely for any unincorporated parcel in the state. He said that for town services to be <br /> 4 provided, the town has legal restrictions with what it can/cannot do outside of the town limits. <br /> 5 He said there needs to be a lot of thought, as plans are made for extending urban <br /> 6 services into these joint planning areas. He said there are many factors that distinguish this <br /> 7 area from a rural area, yet this will never become part of the Town in any Town initiated <br /> 8 process. He feels the Board needs to incorporate a response to this into its discussions. He <br /> 9 questioned, if it is decided that this will never be part of the Town of Chapel Hill, whether <br /> 10 urbanizing this area is a wise effort or not. He questioned whether the Board should consider <br /> 11 transitioning this area into the Town through other mechanisms. He said that the <br /> 12 neighborhood's continued demand for urban services, like water and sewer, will put <br /> 13 development pressure that may lead to voluntary annexation by a developer. <br /> 14 Commissioner Dorosin said the Mayor's comments are important context for discussion, <br /> 15 but the Board of Commissioners needs to keep in mind that the issues related to Rogers Road <br /> 16 come in the form of remediation. He said this makes it more distinct then other ETJ areas and <br /> 17 this is a unique issue. <br /> 18 Mayor Kleinschmidt said he was just adding this to the conversation. <br /> 19 Commissioner Price said Commissioner Rich said they brought the information about <br /> 20 this proposed legislation in reference to the elimination of ETJs by the legislature to the meeting <br /> 21 yesterday of the Task Force and it was discussed. <br /> 22 Mayor Kleinschmidt asked if the task force could be encouraged to add this to their on- <br /> 23 going discussions. <br /> 24 Commissioner Rich said when the Task Force discussed this last night, it got mixed <br /> 25 reviews. She said the bills are coming to the Board of County Commissioners' so quickly these <br /> 26 days that County Commissioners often can't meet on time to discuss them so the Board has <br /> 27 had to amend how it does business. Commissioner Rich said the reaction of the task force is to <br /> 28 have the conversation in spite of the bill and she is not clear on what Mayor Kleinschmidt wants. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Council Member Donna Bell arrived at 7:15. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Mayor Kleinschmidt said one response would be to come to an agreement on the zoning <br /> 33 intensity desired for this area to keep it from becoming an urbanized area outside the city. He <br /> 34 said this might be underscored more, instead of just being one of the principals. <br /> 35 Commissioner Rich said that would be something the Task Force would be considering <br /> 36 in its discussion of gentrification anyway. She asked if he wanted to add the zoning issue to <br /> 37 that portion of the charge. <br /> 38 Council Member Jim Ward said he does not feel the vision for this area should be <br /> 39 changed based on proposed legislation. He said that as this area grows, it will make more <br /> 40 sense for that part of the community to be part of Chapel Hill. He said he feels that moving <br /> 41 forward, it should be ensured that what is being done with regard to possible utility service <br /> 42 districts is legal, even if ETJs get discontinued. He said another question that came up was <br /> 43 regarding the fact that there is no ETJ out there; it is a joint planning district and it is unclear if it <br /> 44 will be affected by ETJ legislation. <br /> 45 Commissioner Dorosin suggested the audience might benefit from an explanation about <br /> 46 the proposed legislation. <br /> 47 Mayor Kleinschmidt said the first important point is the change in the annexation rule <br /> 48 that was enacted last year. He said that in any state with limited ability to grow, even <br /> 49 temporarily, it becomes permanent; because the political will to return to thoughtful growth <br /> 50 planning never arises. He said the second concern is a more recent piece of legislation that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.